I am quite content to not be serving as an EMHC anymore. Initially, it was a difficult decision to make, but, in the end, I am no better a person or more faithful a Catholic simply because I served as one. Active participation does not mean that one has to be doing everything every time.
More assumptions? I don’t think the respondents in this thread are all EMHC’s. I do not serve in that ministry, by choice. For those who do serve, and as has been mentioned in other threads on this topic, they are usually scheduled in advance and arrive to fulfill their obligation. Does the pastor tell them to sit it out? How many would continue to keep their scheduled time, if there were many occasions where they were asked not to assist?
The USCCB’s document had several IF’s,
"
Note that there is no requirement at all for the additional EMHC’s
I would like to hear your opinion on what circumstances would you classify and action to be a ‘true necessity’
I looked at the documents and even though the documents say priest, The Deacon is an ordinary minister and has that facility. the documents also say that the deacon is to distribute the cup, but once again as an ordinary minister he has full facilities to distribute the preciouos body. Under the same section it says that the EMHC cannot self communicate, this leads one to infer that they would be allowed intinct.
It is only contentiouos on tradition blogs. the vast majority of the laity never gives it a second thought. These discussions often become similar to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
To both Benedictgal and Brendan…
How would that happen exactly? Are you saying that if I knelt to receive our Lord you would fall all over me?
Very true. If you go back a few pages you’ll see a letter a priest wrote to his parishioners saying that as he can distribute Holy Communion to a full church in eight minutes, he concluded EMHCs by the letter of the law were unnecessary and as such not to be used. A couple other people here basically disagreed insisting EMHCs are always necessary. If everyone took your advice to respect the judgement of our pastor and of course the head of the Church there wouldn’t be anything more to talk about.
With all due respect, your interpretation is incorrect as it runs contrary to what the CDWDS said. It also runs contrary to the documents. The deacon can administer either species, but, not both via intinction. This mode is only for the celebrant and concelebrants. As for the bishop, it does fall to him as to whether or not he mandates communion under both kinds, but he does not have the authority to allow change who can do what. The Holy See has supreme authority, something which you tend to, with l due respect, selectively discount.
I’m saying that when you went to kneel…you are liable to kick the guy behind you if you are not careful. I’ve never seen anyone (at my home parish) receive kneeling. But if you geneflect…you have to be super careful not to kick the person behind you…space is at a premium.
I agree…if a priests thinks he can distribute Holy Communion and doesn’t want to use EMHC’s that is well within his right. It is his duty to determine when they are needed and when they are not. But I would caution that just because one’s priest determines not to use them, it does not mean that someone else’s priest is wrong in using them. There are lots of factors at play here and it’s best for us laity not to play armchair quarterback (if you know what I mean).
No one said just because one priest can distribute Holy Communion without EMHCs that anyone else is wrong for using them. There’s no need to suggest such thing.
Well, it wasn’t on the Latin Mass thread…but I said if the person wanted to receive kneeling and on the tongue…go ahead…don’t worry about what other people are doing. That is not my preference but hey:shrug:
